Opinion

PAUL GRANILLO: Inland Region must carefully weigh climate policies

We can all agree that we want clean air and water for this generation and for generations to come. This is especially true in our region, where we know we encounter some of the worst air quality in the state. However, we can also all agree that we must provide balance to our communities with a vibrant living and economic environment.

For background, Assembly Bill 32 – also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act – is one of the most significant bills of the last decade. When signed into law in 2006, it stated California must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a 25 percent reduction from our already low level of emissions compared to other states and countries.

The California Air Resources Board was tasked with developing and implementing policies and regulations that would help California meet those 2020 goals. As the years have passed, California’s businesses have made great strides in becoming more efficient and adhering to the policies held within AB32. However, Gov. Jerry Brown and ARB are moving past 2020 and now are developing additional greenhouse gas reduction plans for 2030 and beyond.

As a part of that process, the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee was established as a way to assure communities like ours would be able to participate in the process of developing and implementing the state’s climate change policies. EJAC has recently been reconvened and tasked with developing recommendations to help inform the development of the Air Resources Board’s 2030 Target Scoping Plan Update (the state’s climate change blueprint). The 2030 Target Scoping Plan is intended to reduce the state’s GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels – a very significant undertaking that, if not done smartly, could do a great deal of economic damage to our region.

Recently, members of the Air Resources Board’s EJAC conducted a community workshop in San Bernardino to give residents of our communities an opportunity to discuss what is important and to prioritize local environmental justice concepts and strategies. Although there was some discussion of what concepts could be included in the larger state plan, many of the participants talked about local issues such as more reliable transportation systems, local air quality issues and jobs.

On the surface these concepts seem like they could all be subsumed under AB32 and move the state’s GHG reduction efforts forward, but that would be a fallacy. Climate change is a worldwide issue, not just an Inland Empire issue. And while it is a concern for all of us, it is not a concern for only our region, and it is not our region’s only environmental or quality-of-life concern.

With regard to GHG emission reductions, not only our region, but also the entire state must demand standardized metrics to assure accountability. We must advocate for a comprehensive economic analysis of policies to make sure that the state minimizes costs and maximizes GHG reductions. ARB must explore which GHG emission reduction programs are better than others. ARB should also evaluate what is technologically feasible and cost-effective.

Inland Empire elected officials and residents must be concerned with other types of pollution affecting our region. We must be concerned about the economy of our region, and we must be concerned about the quality of life for our residents. This is why we must be sure that when moving forward with statewide climate change policies, we do not create unintended consequences.

What does it mean when we place more stringent policies on our local businesses? It means the cost of doing business in our region goes up. For example, our residents could face more expensive food products, businesses leaving the state or having to cut back on shifts (eliminating important community jobs) and higher gasoline prices. This could be a decision between putting fuel in the car or buying back-to-school items for our kids.

I am not saying that we should forgo the state’s climate change policies. I am simply saying that our region must take a careful look at any and all suggested policies. And when the time comes to weigh in on what should or should not be considered, we should reflect upon the realities of what can and should be accomplished.

Further, if we do have local transportation, employment, air or water quality issues, we must be mindful to review the problem with an open mind and look to creative solutions. Classifying any of these important issues together under the guise of a GHG emission problem will disservice and disadvantage our communities in the long run.

Paul Granillo is president and CEO of the Inland Empire Economic Partnership.

WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@pe.com.
Please provide your name, city and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published).
Letters of about 200 words will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

Join the conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful
conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments,
we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful,
threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent
or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law,
regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.